This morning, 20th Century Fox held a press event in London’s Leicester Square and showed off around 15 minutes of footage from Prometheus and held a Q&A session with director Ridley Scott and stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron. There are a few reports online so far:

The footage opens in the year 2089 where Shaw finds some markings inside a cave (filmed on the island of Sky). Then the footage cuts to 2093 showing David and Vickers on the Prometheus ship. We’re introduced to the characters before a holographic Peter Weyland explains their mission. Read the full reports for more information. Beware of major spoilers. One thing they make clear is that the planet the story takes place on is not LV-426 but another planet called LV-223. Thanks to Darkoo for the news.

It's perhaps a matter of various statements during different stages of principal photography, but I am slightly confused.

I remember Ridley saying that they shot first 14-15 minutes of movie, so called "The Beginning of time" sequence like 2001, on Iceland. They apparently shot some LV-223 exteriors there as well (there were some photos of the props from the set, right?) and in Q&A video above, he also says there is 5 to 6 minutes of David walking through the ship, busy with some android/butler business.

Therefore, Prometheus won't be classic three act movie? I mean, Overture: "The Beginning of Time", "The Prometheus", "The Temple", "Stealing the Fire", "The Punishment from the God(s)", "Coda (Alien DNA)", credits, David disco medley from the two years on Prometheus?

And second thing.. It seems to me that nobody from the interviewers/press didn't make any review of so far answered things and they keep asking about the same stuff & stuff they obviously can't speak about in order to keep the secrecy until the release.. "Fortunately", Ridley doesn't hesitate to f-bomb anybody

Very, very few films (even or perhaps especially classic ones) actually fall into the three-act structure. 4 or 5 acts is actually much more common. Also, your titles sound a little 2001-esque, although maybe that's appropriate given the themes of the film!

Hopefully they'll release it as an 18's in Europe. Being in my mid 20s I don't fancy paying for something that's been watered down for 13 year olds.

If that happens, which i seriously doubt, it would only be in countries with a late release. the countries getting it on the 1st are getting the same version as the USA. Any changes and they will shoot themselves in the foot as that encourages downloading.

I just hope the film can still be dark and good with a PG-13 rating. It seems like Fox hopes that this movie will bring back it's budget domestically then worldwide. Studios seem to look at the US box office then they do overseas.

I don't know why studios think R rated movies don't well when Terminator 3, all three Matrix movies, The Hangover films and 300 did just fine?

Prometheus is a new name. WE know it's an alien movie, but the name itself will mean nothing to a general audience beyond the marginal power of worth-of-mouth. Not to mention "Alien" has a bit of stigma thanks to the AVP films, it's not as easy a sell as you might think for some.

300 was a comic book before it was a film. That's a built in fanbase.Terminator 3 is a sequel to a HUGELY successful set of movies. The audience was there.Hangover's a comedy - It costs far less to make then something such as this, which is an FX spectacle.

You have to look at how much the film cost to make. Most of those films didn't cost near as much as Prometheus did. This is a HUGE movie with a rather large budget. They have to make that back, not only to recoup the costs and turn a profit, but to also justify a sequel if there is going to be one.

I don't know why studios think R rated movies don't well when Terminator 3, all three Matrix movies, The Hangover films and 300 did just fine?

Yes but you can make even more money lowering the rating and opening it up to a mass of more people. Just fine doesn't cut it with studios when they want the best possible return for a franchise they have high future hopes in

It's perhaps a matter of various statements during different stages of principal photography, but I am slightly confused.

I remember Ridley saying that they shot first 14-15 minutes of movie, so called "The Beginning of time" sequence like 2001, on Iceland. They apparently shot some LV-223 exteriors there as well (there were some photos of the props from the set, right?) and in Q&A video above, he also says there is 5 to 6 minutes of David walking through the ship, busy with some android/butler business.

Therefore, Prometheus won't be classic three act movie? I mean, Overture: "The Beginning of Time", "The Prometheus", "The Temple", "Stealing the Fire", "The Punishment from the God(s)", "Coda (Alien DNA)", credits, David disco medley from the two years on Prometheus?

And second thing.. It seems to me that nobody from the interviewers/press didn't make any review of so far answered things and they keep asking about the same stuff & stuff they obviously can't speak about in order to keep the secrecy until the release.. "Fortunately", Ridley doesn't hesitate to f-bomb anybody

1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.

2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.

Right - thx for clearing that up. I don't speak French, so...

And from a US release point of view that would be box office suicide. If they released the movie a week later and 17 minutes shorter in the states it would tank. People would download the "real" version of it and f**k going to see it in the theatre. Most of this forum would be doing that. That would kill profits even more then a "R" rating.

1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.

2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.

Right - thx for clearing that up. I don't speak French, so...

I am definitely for the 119min movie, I don't mind faster narrative. I think it's a matter of how experienced movie aficionado watches the movie.

Anyway, it's interesting that some of the recent Ridley's movies have around + - 10 minutes in extended versions:

1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.

2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.

Right - thx for clearing that up. I don't speak French, so...

I am definitely for the 119min movie, I don't mind faster narrative. I think it's a matter of how experienced movie aficionado watches the movie.

Anyway, it's interesting that some of the recent Ridley's movies have around + - 10 minutes in extended versions:

1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.

2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.

1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.

2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere - it's hard to keep track where posters inform of rating issues, but I discovered this interesting tidbit:

Quote

Director Ridley Scott & the cast of Prometheus recenty took part in a multitude of Q&A press sessions for the movie in & a recording of the Paris event has emerged online [in French]. During the event it was also revealed that the movies run-time will be 1 hour & 59 minutes but there will also be an extended cut with an additional 17 minutes of footage. This is currently a very contentious issue with the fanbase & seems to imply that the shorter version is a PG-13 rating while the extended version is for an R rating & from what I am hearing the R-rating will be screened as the European threatrical release while the US will suffer the PG-13.

... since the 70's Scott has said he's a businessman, and makes movies for mass audiences and money.

...that cigar is such a dead give away, bet he's been smoking that since the 70's too.... wonder what he's really smokin; I've only ever met Sir Riddles once, long time ago some 30 years at least, but he wasn't smoking in then I recall...lol

... since the 70's Scott has said he's a businessman, and makes movies for mass audiences and money.

I posted yesterday that he's been a sell out since 82' (Blade Runner). And I'm holding to that. Probably why so many of his films have been good but not exceptional.

And he's been wanting to mass market his movies since The Duellists. He just wasn't successful. People think 'sell-outs' who fail have more artistic integrity? Even going back to the The Duellists he was derided as less of an artist and more of an ad-man.

Not too sure I agree with that, a lot of the kids stuff that are U and PG perhaps, but over the last 12 months a lot of movies have been 100 minutes or more, especially some of the higher profile stuff.

He's 73? You would think he'd give less of a shit about pleasing the studio and just making a last stab at perfection.Does he relish in his legacy of a man who pleased the studio heads? He lets them distort his vision at the end of the day.

I suppose the problem is, he's part artist part business man part just doing a job. He referred to his movies as "just a job" during one of the q and a's. Says it all really.

Yes he said he cut 17 minutes from one of his recent movie that damaged the story.He didnt want to say what movie.

A friend journalist who had a one on one interview asked him about the lenght Scott said hewas very happy with the 119mins cut. Once the shit start to hit the fans the events unfold quickly.The movie is mean and lean he said. No fat.He did not wanted to dwell into what has been cut, what to expect for the BR.

I'm not expecting a cut as long as KINGDOM OF HEAVEN but more like 15/20 more minutes.From what i know you can't cut big chunk of the story and still make it work like he did wi (th KOH.It will probably have to do with the tone, violence, some background( like Shaw's father scene).

I think he was either referring to Robin Hood or Kingdom of Heaven. I'm steering more towards the latter, due to the two completely opposite reactions to the Theatrical Version and the Director's Cut. I've never seen so much diverse reactions to two versions of the same film - except for maybe Blade Runner. But then again, Kingdom of Heaven had about 45 minutes of additional footage, when Robin Hood did in-fact have about 17 minutes. But seeing as Ridley forgot Yaphet Kotto's name, I don't think it's outside the realm of extreme possibility that he made have simply gotten mixed up with which film had the specific amount of minutes cut.

Has anybody else noticed that Ridley's hearing seems to be going! Everyone of these on-stage interviews he's done for Prometheus he's had hearing difficulties and blames anything but his own hearing, haha.

i reconsidered my thinkings 'bout the run time... and i came to one conclusion: the 2 hours only will affect largely on the first screening (when you see the movie for the first time), a bit disappointing not spending 3-4 hours in the universe of prometheus.

but when prometheus becomes our favourite movie (of all time) and we'll watch it once in a week, when released on dvd, the 2 hours (+ 17 min) will be en0ugh, i think/hope.

even aliens special edition became a bit too long in those years. but i won't dare watching the theatrical cut once of aliens.

I don't really care in the slightest about the rating. What I do care about is the run time and if it has been heavily cut. Small shots of blood being cut out is fine but once you start messing with the run time by 20-30 minutes then we will have an underdeveloped and confusing mess like the theatrical cut of Alien 3, and we don't want that do we?

Not exactly off topic but here's a few things maybe someone could explain for me!!

...though please excuse a little ranting first...

I recently saw a movie called The Hunger Games, recommended to me by friends after reading the book, so I was dragged along too. It wasn't exactly a bad film, just so long and unnecessary on too many occassions, I almost fell asleep watching it half way through,lol. But here's the thing! That movie is 142 minutes long, rated a 12a here in UK (the equivalent of PG-13 in the States), but there wasn't one time in the first week (except the really late showings) the queue to see it wasn't right round my local cinema, so clearly the length of a PG-13 film doesn't necessarily affect its popularity, yet it doesn't appear anyone at FOX nor Riddles himself, gave this any thought with their puny 119 minute effort.

So why is this movie really finding it so hard to get a PG-13 rating, while Scott continues to lay the blame firmly with the MPAA (for reasons I'm curious about), and Rothman is quite happy defending everything because he knows he can't lose, I shudder to think what's going on behind the scenes. Like most films, I assume an uncut verson of Prometheus was made anywhere up to 180 minutes long, most of which would have been cut by the director and his assistant several times over before the MPAA sees anything, mostly unwanted material, resulting in a final cut for them to decide what needs to go in order to gain the required rating, which they still haven't done.

Also with Prometheus it sounds like there were two seperate cuts made, an 'R' cut first for the DVD/Blu Ray, then a PG-13 cut from the same thing for the cinema release, is that right??? Anyway, reports suggest up to 17 minutes have supposedly been cut from this 'R' rated version in order to get that PG-13 the studio wanted, so one would assume the film was made with PG-13 in mind, but if that was the case what did FOX submit to the MPAA which they ended up cutting so much from before the movie even got an 'R' rating. Indeed, after all that, why is it the MPAA STILL haven't finished when, for all we know, they could realistically cut Prometheus down to 90 minutes before they are satisfied!!

Like I said, maybe I'm missing something here and someone else knows more about the film editing process than I do, but something tells me we're being screwed with this movie. Old Riddles is going to get his version out anyway so I doubt he's even bothered (he probably never wanted a PG-13 just like the rest of us), while those of you who prefer to pay extra for the pleasure of seeing Prometheus in 3D may lose out twice, especially if the medium doesn't do the it any justice (I've yet to see any live action movie really do 3D justice), while I suspect Rothman is laughing all the way to the bank even if this film only breaks even!!

...end of another rant! lol

the movie i'm going to see in the cinema will be a two hours teaser for the final cut that i will get a few months later.i will enjoy it and watch it with great anticipation for the complete uncut thing.

Not exactly off topic but here's a few things maybe someone could explain for me!!

...though please excuse a little ranting first...

I recently saw a movie called The Hunger Games, recommended to me by friends after reading the book, so I was dragged along too. It wasn't exactly a bad film, just so long and unnecessary on too many occassions, I almost fell asleep watching it half way through,lol. But here's the thing! That movie is 142 minutes long, rated a 12a here in UK (the equivalent of PG-13 in the States), but there wasn't one time in the first week (except the really late showings) the queue to see it wasn't right round my local cinema, so clearly the length of a PG-13 film doesn't necessarily affect its popularity, yet it doesn't appear anyone at FOX nor Riddles himself, gave this any thought with their puny 119 minute effort.

So why is this movie really finding it so hard to get a PG-13 rating, while Scott continues to lay the blame firmly with the MPAA (for reasons I'm curious about), and Rothman is quite happy defending everything because he knows he can't lose, I shudder to think what's going on behind the scenes. Like most films, I assume an uncut verson of Prometheus was made anywhere up to 180 minutes long, most of which would have been cut by the director and his assistant several times over before the MPAA sees anything, mostly unwanted material, resulting in a final cut for them to decide what needs to go in order to gain the required rating, which they still haven't done.

Also with Prometheus it sounds like there were two seperate cuts made, an 'R' cut first for the DVD/Blu Ray, then a PG-13 cut from the same thing for the cinema release, is that right??? Anyway, reports suggest up to 17 minutes have supposedly been cut from this 'R' rated version in order to get that PG-13 the studio wanted, so one would assume the film was made with PG-13 in mind, but if that was the case what did FOX submit to the MPAA which they ended up cutting so much from before the movie even got an 'R' rating. Indeed, after all that, why is it the MPAA STILL haven't finished when, for all we know, they could realistically cut Prometheus down to 90 minutes before they are satisfied!!

Like I said, maybe I'm missing something here and someone else knows more about the film editing process than I do, but something tells me we're being screwed with this movie. Old Riddles is going to get his version out anyway so I doubt he's even bothered (he probably never wanted a PG-13 just like the rest of us), while those of you who prefer to pay extra for the pleasure of seeing Prometheus in 3D may lose out twice, especially if the medium doesn't do the it any justice (I've yet to see any live action movie really do 3D justice), while I suspect Rothman is laughing all the way to the bank even if this film only breaks even!!

Err... What do you mean by retcon in this case? As far as I know the idea has been brought up many times over the years and never really been agreed one way or the other. Some behind the scenes stuff has often suggested it landed there, but many fans have suggested it was a crashed ship. So I don't really think there's any major retconning going on.